Victoria’s judges and law officers are overseeing a regime of revolving-door ‘justice’ that sees violent offenders repeatedly set free on bail, only to commit even more heinous crimes. Even when offenders of such revolting crimes as child-rape are actually jailed, sentences are too-often ridiculously light (especially if the paedo is canny enough to flounce to court in a dress and win the judge’s cooing sympathy).
Is it any surprise, then, that people are getting a bit narky with such a soft-touch criminal justice system?
Cue the pearl-clutching and whining from the elite who live entirely cossetted from the consequences of their own virtue-signalling.
Death threats against judges and safety incidents inside Victoria’s courts have soared in a trend that has been linked to the so-called sovereign citizen movement.
New data from the independent agency that runs Victoria’s court system shows “judicial security threats” – threats to harm or kill a judge, court staff or a member of their families – more than doubled in a year to 35 in 2024. The figure looks set to double again this year after already reaching 32 recorded incidents in the first six months of 2025.
Let’s establish from the outset that death threats are simply not on. But what’s really going on? After all, as we learned from the debacle at the ANU in 2011, the taxpayer-funded class are not about ludicrously catastrophising so-called ‘threats’. In the ANU case, the ‘death threats’ amounted to someone involved in the ACT’s kangaroo cull program casually showing their renewed shooting license when the shooting program came up in conversation. As columnist Tim Blair wrote, “Must you people exaggerate everything?”
So, what is the nature of the threats, here?
These threats are often made from the dock or inside the courtroom by offenders or their families, but also include ones sent through the post, email or put on the internet.
“The courts and VCAT [the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal] have observed increases in concerning behaviours in recent years,” said Louise Anderson, chief executive of Court Services Victoria. “This includes aggression by court users towards staff and threats to judicial officers.”
In other words, then, crims getting mouthy in the dock, and ‘Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery’. No doubt upsetting, but, really?
And that’s all they’ll tell us.
CSV declined to comment on the nature of the threats or who was responsible for making them, except to say it was a “critical issue”.
That naturally gives the media full rein to make up any old guff they can come up with. And they can come up with a lot. Especially about their big ol’ boogey-man du jour, the ‘sov cit’ nutters.
But two sources in the judiciary, who cannot be identified publicly, pointed to the so-called sovereign citizen movement as a particular concern. The movement is based on a belief that rejects the power of the state – and judiciary – as illegitimate.
OK, but what have they actually done?
The extremely confrontational behaviour of some sovereign citizens has led to judges and magistrates increasingly feeling unsafe, particularly after the alleged murder of two police officers by self-described sovereign citizen Dezi Freeman, the sources said.
If that sounds like a bit of a reach, that’s exactly what it is. Is there any actual evidence of anything apart from one obviously lone nutbag?
Legal records show sovereign citizens have challenged the authority of the courts in matters ranging from speeding fines, home foreclosures and custody battles to serious criminal matters including sex crimes and attempted murder.
“I’d say since Covid, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who make these arguments in court – they are disruptive, they are argumentative, they are combative,” said Dr Harry Hobbs, an associate professor of law at the University of NSW who has studied interactions between the legal system and people who hold “pseudolaw” beliefs.
So, they’re mouthy dickheads? Where is the actual evidence of what would pass the Pub Test as an actual death threat?
Heaven forbid they ask themselves what’s behind it.
Nick Papas, KC, a chief magistrate from 1993 to 1996, said the public’s declining respect for the courts was part of a broader growth in mistrust of institutions.
Gee, now I wonder why?
“Part of it’s driven by the strong commentary in the media – extraordinary commentary – about how judges should be sacked over ‘lenient’ sentences, that we should be able to vote them out. That’s a warning sign for me – where does that take us?”
Hmm, maybe… to some accountability?
Bugger that, they’ll just stick to clutching their pearls instead.
